(1) LEAVE granted. (2) THE respondents had applied for the direct recruitment posts of Assistant Executive Engineers. They admittedly belonged to reserved B category of backward classes. When they applied for direct recruitment as in-service candidates, as per government order in vogue, at the relevant time, income limit was Rs. 10,000.00 from all sources including the income drawn by the respondents. Since the applicants parents were also in service, their income from all sources and of the applicants exceeded Rs. 10,000.00. But on 12/12/1986, government issued another GO, realising that imposition of the condition relating to income from all sources to in-service candidates belonging to backward classes would, in fact, amount to depriving them of the right to apply for direct recruitment posts. Consequently, they issued the order deleting the pay and allowances Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 20921-20922 of 1993 drawn by an in-service candidate, in computation of annual income of Rs 10,000. Consequently, the respondents became eligible to be considered for recruitment as reserved B candidates. (3) AT the time of interview of the candidates, they were called upon to submit their revised statement of income pursuant to which the respondents submitted their revised family income certificates together with self-attested copies of certificates of income as provided for in the Rules. The public service commission rejected their claims as backward class B on the ground of defective attestation as that the attestation not being in accordance with. the Rules. Respondents challenged their non-inclusion in the list as reserved candidates. tribunal found that the exclusion of candidates on a technical ground was illegal and there was, in fact, substantial compliance of the requirement of attestation. The tribunal in its own full bench judgment dated 29/3/1993 allowed such application. Thus this appeal by special leave. (4) THOUGH the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondents had not submitted their revised statements within the time alongwith the application, we find no merit in the contention. It is seen that after the respondents submitted their applications according to Rules amendment was made by the Order No. SWL 43 BCA 84 dated 6/8/1985 in which the salary and allowances of the candidates appearing as in-service candidates shall not be excluded in computing family income. It is seen that after the respondents submitted their applications according to Rules amendment was made by the Order No. SWL 43 BCA 84 dated 6/8/1985 in which the salary and allowances of the candidates appearing as in-service candidates shall not be excluded in computing family income. If that be so, the respondents were within income limit prescribed under the Rules and thereby they became eligible to be considered as reserved B candidates of backward classes. It is true that the respondents themselves had certified by self-attestation as Gazetted Officers. In fact, the Order No. GAD 41 SCR 74 dated 23/12/1975 empowers them to effect such an attestation and that therefore, as per the Rules in vogue, it was done. Though they would have been well-advised not to attest their own certificates, that could not have been a valid ground to reject their claims. Hence, we do not find any justification in rejecting their claims as backward class B or necessary appropriate group. However, it was contended that the direction issued by the tribunal to place the respondents at the appropriate place as per the ranking given by the public service commission was illegal. We find no justification for denying them the benefit. The tribunal found thus: "WE only direct in the light of the discussions that the names of he applicants in Appeals Nos. 3830 and 4117 of 1991 may be included in the appropriate places in the select list on merit according to the claims they have made for consideration under the reserved category and that select list as amended will be forwarded to the government and it is open to the government to do what it wishes to do in accordance with law."